Some timely refugee logic

Immigration minister Peter Dutton, has recently come under fire for his remarks regarding refugees, after he stated that any increase in humanitarian intake would lead to further ‘illiterate and innumerate’ people residing Australia. Dutton also suggested that refugees would likely ‘languish in unemployment queues and on Medicare’. Predictably, Dutton has been assailed by the left, with opposition leader Bill Shorten condemning the comments as insulting the ‘millions of migrants who have contributed to making this a truly great country’. Dutton has also sent twitter into overdrive, with scorn from refugee- advocates and charlatan progressives alike.

But surely, irrespective of whether these assertions are moral or immoral, should be a separate question altogether, compared to the far more pressing issue; is Peter Dutton is correct in his assertions, or incorrect? Far too frequently, appeals to emotion can blur the differences between what is a matter of fact and what is that of falsehood, however on this occasion, this slippery slope must be avoided.

So, are current refugees placing a substantial burden on Australia’s welfare system, or are they supplementing it? Unfortunately, according to Building a New Life in Australia, a ‘Longitudinal Study of Humanitarian Migrants’, refugees struggle in attaining employment once settled in Australia. In reference to refugees that settled during the Labor government of 2007- 2013, the report revealed that a whopping 88 % of asylum seekers relied on government payments, with only 6.8 per cent reporting reporting paid work as their primary income, when surveyed 3 to 6 months after their arrival.

This report is not racist propaganda, nor does it evoke a misleading conclusion. It’s statistically- supported claims, institute an indisputable, unequivocal, and uncompromising set facts in regards to refugees. There is no means by which these findings can be bypassed, skewed, or interpreted in any other way. Current Australian refugees, for factors which are up for debate, face sizable economic difficulties, whose responsibility will ultimately be bared by the Australian tax- payer.

Whether the reasoning for these issues facing refugees, were to be deemed as race- related, influenced by the economic climate, or due to a myriad of other factors, would certainly form a sensible platform for debate. Nonetheless, what is an established truth, as is the financial liability that accompanies modern Australian humanitarian intakes, should never be minced or re-adjusted to appease tsunamis of political correctness.

7 thoughts on “Some timely refugee logic”

You talk about the impacts of taking more in but do not consider the impacts of taking less in; people die. It’s impractical to save everyone and I think that the most effective way of helping refugees is dealing with the issues worth fleeing their countries although thats a completely different can of worms. In the meantime, however, we should do everything we can to help as many people as we can within reason. Currently we’re doing fairly well on an international scene although there is always room for improvement.

Lets consider the full quote – “They won’t be numerate or literate in their own language, let alone English. These people would be taking Australian jobs, there’s no question about that. For many of them that would be unemployed, they would languish in unemployment queues and on Medicare and the rest of it so there would be huge cost and there’s no sense in sugar-coating that, that’s the scenario.”

As an Australian how do you find that inoffensive? By stating that someone who is illiterate and innumerate in English will be ‘stealing our jobs’ Peter Dutton is insulting the intelligence of every job holding and job searching Australian. Even if this was an unintentional remark his speech in paradoxically flawed. They will be stealing our jobs but the majority will be unemployed and languishing in tax-payer benefits. Obviously there are costs associated with the intake of refugees and I believe in regulated and moderated refugee intake, however, the costs of settling refugees are certainly out shadowed by the benefit; saving a human life. Peter Dutton is in need of a serious reality check.

Yes to some degree there are some contradictions in his statement. And yes, of course any developed nation should have some humanitarian intake. Peter Dutton has not called for a halt in intakes, rather, he has warned off the impacts of taking more in, which I think should be unequivocally spelled out so there is no ambiguity.